Pierre v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILGENS PIERRE, No. 21-308
Petitioner, Agency No. A209-869-960
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: LEE, BRESS, MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
Wilgens Pierre, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of a Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration
Judge (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s
decision for substantial evidence. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060, 1066
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(9th Cir. 2021). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination
unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr,
918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). “Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of
Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994) and also provides its own review
of the evidence and law, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.”
Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation and
alterations omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Pierre’s
applications for asylum and withholding of removal. To be eligible for asylum,
a petitioner must demonstrate a “likelihood of ‘persecution or a well-founded fear
of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.’” Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1059 (quoting
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal,
the petitioner must show a “clear probability” of such harm. Id. (quoting Alvarez-
Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003)).
An asylum or withholding applicant has the burden of demonstrating his
“membership in [a] particular social group.” Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132
n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 223 (BIA
2014)). Though “landownership may form the basis of a particular social group,”
Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1114 (9th Cir. 2013), the BIA reasonably
concluded that Pierre failed to demonstrate membership in the proposed
2 21-308
particular social group of “Haitian Landowners Targeted by Other Haitian
Individuals to Dispossess Them of Their Land.” Pierre failed to demonstrate that
he owned land in Haiti. On the contrary, he testified that the land he was allegedly
forced to abandon was titled in his mother’s name. Although he suggested that
he was involved in the sale of the land after his mother’s death, he conceded that
he never owned it. The BIA therefore reasonably concluded that Pierre failed to
establish persecution based on his membership in a particular social group. The
record does not compel a contrary conclusion.
2. Pierre failed to make any argument or cite any authority regarding
CAT protection in his opening brief. Any challenge to the BIA’s determination
on that issue is therefore waived. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260
(9th Cir. 1996). Regardless, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of
CAT relief. Pierre has not alleged any past harm rising to the level of torture and
the record does not support that he is likely to be tortured if removed to Haiti.
The BIA thus reasonably concluded that Pierre has not satisfied his burden for
CAT protection. See Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir.
2020) (holding that an applicant seeking relief under the CAT must establish that
he “will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a
public official if removed to h[is] native country”).
PETITION DENIED.
3 21-308